You are wrong. They had a share of 57 percent in the last deal, yes. But that doesn't mean they are entitled to that number as a starting point again. (We are not talking 'whole' contracts here, because that's a point i think is legit for the players).

That is factually incorrect. They are entitled to that number as a starting point because it was negotiated in the previous agreement just as much as the owners being entitled to a salary cap. Is that logic going to lead to a mutually beneficial agreement between owners and players that gets hockey back on the ice? You decide.

Now what you and others with the same opinion fail to realize is that we're here because the owners made a miscalculation in the previous CBA. Not the players. The owners.

The owners were so fixed on a salary cap last time (and they got it) that they overlooked the math. With their number of 43%, even with record revenues of $3.3B, they seemingly didn't have enough money to manage their businesses. It was a complete miscalculation on their part. Yet they still spend $100m+ for 10+ years in contracts? Is that smart to you?

Now they want to correct that mistake. The players are willing to play ball but the owners previously asked them to take a 24% rollback, now want a 12% immediate reduction in player salaries. The players are saying for what?

The owners messed up the calculation. The players are willing to give back. What are the owners willing to concede for the players to give back another 12%? This potential make whole concession may be the start.

But the illogical arguments you guys are posing creates a lot of misinformation.

"They players aren't entitled to 57% as a starting point" is a completely irrelevant argument in any salary-cap based proposal. Enough of it already.